Sunday, January 23, 2011

Aussie Muslim: let us take over

Ibrahim Siddiq Conlon grew up as an Australian boy in country NSW and has a masters degree in architecture. He is also a convert to Islam who preaches for the establishment of an Islamic state in Australia:

ISLAMIC preacher Ibrahim Siddiq-Conlon points heavenwards to emphasise his message for the governments of Australia -- there is no God but Allah and only his laws should be obeyed.

"My attack is on the Prime Minister of Australia," he said yesterday. "I hate the parliament in Canberra. I want to go straight for the jugular vein and advise the parliament that they have no right to legislate. They should immediately step down and let the Muslims take over."

An Australian-born convert to Islam, Siddiq-Conlon is the self-anointed leader of a group called Sharia4Australia, which is pushing for the introduction of sharia courts as a first step towards achieving Islamic law.

"One day Australia will live under sharia; it's inevitable," he said. "If they (Australians) don't accept it, that's not our problem. We hope, and our objective is to have a peaceful transition, but when you look at history that has never been the case. There's always been a fight. It is inevitable that one day there will be a struggle for Islam in Australia."

IBRAHIM Siddiq-Conlon has a message for Australians, whether they want to hear it or not.

"One day Australia will be ruled by sharia, no doubt," he declares. "That is why non-Muslims are worried, because they know one day they won't be able to drink their beer, they won't be able to eat their pork and they won't be able to do their homosexual acts, because one day they know they will be controlled."

...Siddiq-Conlon is the face and voice of Sharia4Australia, a group formed in Sydney's southwest to agitate for Islamic law, starting with the introduction of sharia courts and ending, in his ideal world, with Islamic rule.

While he claims to eschew violence, he unapologetically preaches hate. An online video posted by his group describes its members as "uncompromising [in] their disallegiance, disloyalty and hate for the disbelievers".

"I hate the parliament. I hate [democracy] with a pure hate," he says. Moreover, it is obligatory for all Muslims to reject democracy, because it is a challenge to God's law: "They must hate it, speak out against it, and if that doesn't work, take action against it."

Siddiq-Conlon formed Sharia4Australia last year, styling himself as the new champion for Islamic law in Australia.

An online video announcing its emergence stated: "For far too long now Aust has been ruled by a corrupt evil infedile [sic] group of people who are clear disbelievers in the sight of Allah. It is time for change. Time at least for the truth.

"Today Muslim youth and the oppressed and weak Muslims march forward with their flags behind brother Ibrahim Siddiq-Conlon. O Muslims stand tall, take the vow and pledge allegiance to none other than Allah and his Messengerorting and vowing allegiance w the Muslims while disloyalty to the disbelievers and their kufr [infidel] ways."

In person, Siddiq-Conlon initially seems harmless enough. He dresses in a white cotton tunic, trousers and sandals, with a neatly trimmed beard and a touch of black kohl eyeliner, in the style said to have been favored by the original companions of the Prophet Mohammed.

He is quietly spoken, polite and articulate ... He converted to Islam while a student, travelled to Indonesia, found a wife there, and returned to Australia...

"I'm an Aussie, I'm a full-bred Aussie, you can't get more Aussie than me," he insists.

But his proclaimed love for Australia is followed quickly by a prediction that, ultimately, Muslims here will have to fight for Islamic law. He doubts the struggle will begin in the next 10 or 20 years, but hopes it will occur in his lifetime. "People don't give up [their land without a fight]. There's always been a fight. It is inevitable that one day there will be a struggle for Islam in Australia. We don't shy away from it. Whether it means we get put in jail, kicked out of the country. If it means harm to us, so be it."

Nor does his disavowal of violence extend to Australian troops in Afghanistan, who he describes as "evil".

"Obviously I don't support the killing of innocent people, but these American and Australian troops have gone there to kill Muslims. What do they expect? Yes, they deserve to die. Under sharia, yes they do. That is the judgment of sharia. They are eligible to be attacked."

When you view his YouTube videos you are immediately struck by a sense of how religion and politics are intertwined in Islam. Living rightly for Ibrahim Siddiq Conlon means not only living modestly and in submission to God but also fighting, literally, for the establishment of Islamic political rule.

At the moment, the balance of forces is not favourable for Siddiq Conlon. The Muslim population of Australia is still too small for any realistic challenge to state power. But numbers are growing due to influxes of Muslim refugees from countries like Lebanon and Somalia. In 1971, there were 22,311 Muslims in Australia, by 2006 there were 340,400. A Melbourne suburb like Dallas already has a 40% Muslim population, in Auburn in Sydney it's 41%.

The current refugee policy is leading us into dangerous territory. The problem with the policy is that it does not attempt to resettle refugees in like countries. For instance, it would be better if refugees from the Middle-East were resettled in a like country in the Middle-East, one that was closest in terms of standard of living, religion and ethnic tradition.

The "like country" policy would immediately discourage economic refugees and it would more easily allow both assimilation and repatriation. And it would help non-Islamic countries such as Australia avoid a descent into future political turmoil at the hands of those agitating for sharia.

It's not impossible for the "like country" policy to gain traction. Even in Sweden, there are politicians who recognise (in private) that issues of assimilation have to be considered. One of the more interesting of the wikileaks was the revelation that the Swedish Foreign Minister, Carl Bildt, and the Migration Minister, Tobias Billström, met with the US Ambassador to Iraq in 2007 to try to put in place a system for returning Iraqis whose asylum applications had failed.

"Without rules and regulations for sending those without permits back, the immigration problem would be out of control in a country of 9 million inhabitants," Bildt allegedly said.

The ministers also spoke about several honour killings in Sweden, which led to demands from the Swedes to a stricter immigration policy.

Isn't that an admission that the numbers of refugees from countries with incompatible cultures needs to be limited? If even Swedish ministers can recognise this reality, then surely others can as well.

The Swedish Greens are up in arms about the wikileaks revelation and are threatening to report Bildt and Billström to various human rights committees, but you'd expect that from the Greens. The Green's spokeswoman prefers the status quo:

Ceballos said that the reasons that Bildt and Billström have referenced for limiting the number of Iraqi refugees should not be the deciding factors for the Swedish authorities.

"The Swedish National Migration Board should decide on the basis of each person's protection needs, not based on whether they are easy to integrate or whether they come from areas where honour-related violence occurs," she said.

Why can't their protection needs be met by resettling them in a like country? Why not at least try to harmonise protection needs with ease of integration? Isn't that the sensible, rational policy? To say "we'll take them regardless of whether we can integrate them" is hardly fair to the host population and is likely down the track to lead to a conflicted society.

44 comments:

More muslims should come out and speak like this, then we can show the public what a menace they are. Because this guy's an "aussie" he probably feels the urge to be very vocal to show his commitment. Its the guys who say "oh you've got nothing to worry about" that arguably concern me more.

My fear is that most muslims don't come to Australia or elsewhere as part of a refugee claim but as part of normal immigration. Therefore we'll have to look at our standard immigration laws.

It is said that muslims are very hospitable and polite hosts in their own countries. They can be hospitable and polite guests in ours and publicly renounce any idea of taking over.

We have a population that loves peace. I wonder what indignity could rouse it? It shouldn't be legal to call for the takeover of the country, by another, or by a foreign religion within it.

Its nearly Australia day. I hope on that day the country reflects on what kind of society it wants for itself. If the muslims are strong in Australia its only because we choose to be weak.

It has never been our tradition to have mutual and conflicting legal systems in the West, Church law being a limited exception that comes to mind. I hope that this call for Sharia is exposed and publicly rejected.

The hatred of Muslims for democracy - which Siddiq Conlon says he hates with a "pure" hate - is never zealous enough for them to seek asylum in a more congenial society where the mullahs are run off their feet smiting challenges to God's law.

Conlon, by the way, sounds suspiciously like an Irish surname - the septs of which originated in Galway and Roscommon. We may suspect the ancestral Conlons who emigrated to Australia or were transported there, would be only too happy to be persecuted by mere democracy.

"Conlon, by the way, sounds suspiciously like an Irish surname - the septs of which originated in Galway and Roscommon. We may suspect the ancestral Conlons who emigrated to Australia or were transported there, would be only too happy to be persecuted by mere democracy."

My family emigrated from Erin,I know what you mean.

On a related note, while it may seem radical, I think it's high time Western countries established an annual "Stomp a Muslim's Ass for Democracy" day. I realize that a lot of innocent people would get hurt, but a lot of members of the "religion of peace",like this guy,would get the reality check they really need.

Muslims think they're bad? For about 20,000 years Anglo-Saxons ate people on a regular basis. We would literally eat their towelheaded asses alive if we stopped being so damned nice to everybody and went back to doing what we do best, conquering other civilizations.

"One day Australia will live under sharia; it's inevitable," he said. "If they (Australians) don't accept it, that's not our problem."

This kind of statement needs to be met with a boot repeatedly stamping on the mouth that uttered it,for nothing else, for the sheer bastardly ingrate nature of the statement. They know if they made a similar statement but replaced "Allah" with "democracy" in their own home country they'd be beheaded quicker than you can say "allahu akhbar" and then they come over to our nations and abuse our free speech to try to overthrow our countries and force their craphole societies on us?

And yet as was pointed out the argument for Sharia is a democratic one, we’re a portion of society and we should be given certain rights. Hated free speech is used as the mechanism to argue for this. Ingrate is absolutely right.

Australians will not take a stand until they see how sharia will affect them personally. Conlan's words regarding no beer, no pork, no gays should be repeated on a daily basis to as many people as we can get to listen to us. Most Australians can shrug off Islam's growth in Australia as it has no discernible impact on them. They do not realise that, unlike Christianity or Buddhism, Islam seeks to control the lives of all within its power, not just Muslims. Another thing. Muslims seem to do a very good line in hate, don't they? No hating the sin but loving the sinner for them. I have often pondered how Islam's religious tenets take the worst excesses of human nature (lying, theft, envy, violence and murder) and gives them a holy veneer when practised on non-Muslims. How easy it must be to give in to your base nature when Allah approves it.OT: Thank you, Mark, for the quote from Simone de Beauvoir. I've already repeated it in a conversation with a couple of ladies at work. Needless to say, their view of feminists was already pretty dim. But it did give them a glimpse into the philosophical underpinnings of the feminist movement.Luzu

Jesse 7,Muslims come across as the most insuffrably arrogant people, devoid of compassion and completely self-righteous. The whole philosophy of Islam is designed to appeal to the Arab mind (ie Koran written in heaven in Arabic, the only way to read it is in the original Arabic, Muhammed as being the seal of the prophets with those who came before him relegated to not quite right, and the ways of the 7th century Arabs held up as a model of behaviour for the whole world to follow). I am constantly amazed at the way Western converts feel the need to "Arabacise" their names, such as the very pious Muslim quoted in the article, or pepper their conversation with "Inshallah" or "Ilhumdillilah". It would seem that indeed, as Hugh Fitzgerald has often written, Islam is a vehicle for Arab supremacy.Luzu

""It would seem that indeed, as Hugh Fitzgerald has often written, Islam is a vehicle for Arab supremacy.""

Pakistan has half a dozen different languages, yet no Pakistani I have met has been able to give me the word for "Hello" in any of those languages.

That is because those words [along with many others] no longer exist, only the Arabic: Asalamu Alaykum.

Islam infiltrates Arabic cultures into societies all over the world, replacing what was there before.

Arabs and Europeans are both large general groups of warrior tribes who historically fight each other with great vigour when there is no outside threat or internal creed to unite them.

Arabs are self righteous and overbearing, but our people are so self-righteous that we are destroying ourselves to prove our "virtue" and so overbearing that we are spreading the creed of liberalism across the world when it has almost destroyed our own societies.

This is not to excuse Islam of course, but essentially the faults of the Arabs are the same as our own, only we have taken them to the extremes that Arabs find decidedly too hot to handle.

TO MANY males it sounds the perfect existence. "The men here have no responsibilities," says Kaith Pariat, a member of the Khasi tribe, an ancient community of about a million people who live in the hills of northeast India.

"All we have to do is to eat, drink, play the guitar and produce children." For all their permitted fecklessness, however, the Khasi men are far from happy. Fed up with being branded the weaker sex and discriminated against, under centuries-old traditions, they have started what may be the world's only "men's lib" movement.

The tribe is a rare example of a matrilineal community. It is the youngest daughter who inherits property and children take their mothers' surnames. If a family does not have a daughter, it must adopt one to become its heir.

Men are expected to sleep in the house of the mother-in-law and to keep quiet. They are excluded from clan meetings, which are presided over by a network of matriarchs. This strict social hierarchy is supported by the Indian Constitution, which recognises the traditions of official ethnic minorities and gives them legal status.

Men say this was acceptable in the past, when activities such as hunting took them away from home for long periods. But today, thanks in part to the influence of Christianity, the trend is for nuclear families and men say they are mere dogsbodies.

"but our people are so self-righteous that we are destroying ourselves to prove our "virtue" and so overbearing that we are spreading the creed of liberalism across the world when it has almost destroyed our own societies."

Interesting point. I think the West is the most superior of civilisations but I wonder at our stupidity sometimes. Where there was once wisdom it seems to have been taken over by momentary convenience, and where there was purpose it seems to have been replaced by as you said self righteousness.

It is said that muslims are very hospitable and polite hosts in their own countries. They can be hospitable and polite guests in ours and publicly renounce any idea of taking over.

That would make them apostates. Perhaps they are polite at home because Islam already rules there and they don't have to worry about wresting control of the country from the kafirs.

I have often pondered how Islam's religious tenets take the worst excesses of human nature (lying, theft, envy, violence and murder) and gives them a holy veneer when practised on non-Muslims. How easy it must be to give in to your base nature when Allah approves it.

Which explains why Islam has never lacked for converts. Also, its simplicity is attractive both to peasants and those elites who have grown tired of thinking. The liberal obsession with categorization and the subtle and ever-changing rules of political correctness ironically ensure a steady flow of leftists into the ranks of the ummah.

I am constantly amazed at the way Western converts feel the need to "Arabacise" their names...

That's an interesting point. I'm not sure if the Arabization of names is mandatory or something that the non-Arabs take on voluntarily. I remember that the Chechens routinely gave themselves Arabic names.

I can't help but chuckle at all the mouth frothing over this bloke. Like I said in my bloghttp://nikitafrommessinia.blogspot.com/2011/01/australian-sinks-to-new-low-if-thats.html?zx=6906f5d40ac6e129this bloke is a nobody who may as well be howling at the moon with his deranged fantasies. Unfortunately some of the genuine and debatable points made by Mark seem to be lost amongst the anti muslim hate speech in the follow up comments.Issues such as the current refugee policy, discouraging "economic" refugees, accepting refugees from "incompatible" societies....all issues worthy of mature debate, however all I see here (in the follow up comments) is the usual "muslims are evil" rubbish.

I think there is some truth in what James is suggesting - that while Muslims, acting on instructions from Allah, want to impose Sharia or their way of life on the entire world, we are trying to export social democracy (or liberalism) all over the place.

The future of the Western world looks like a choice of evils. Under totalitarian liberalism we would be controlled by politically correct considerations in whatever we think, say, and do. In a society governed by a theocracy under Sharia law, we would be treated as dhimmis - which is a form of slavery.

So, it's either persecution by liberal measures or dhimmitude - if things go on as they are.

On the other hand, isn't it always best to take arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing, end them?

""The future of the Western world looks like a choice of evils. Under totalitarian liberalism we would be controlled by politically correct considerations in whatever we think, say, and do. In a society governed by a theocracy under Sharia law, we would be treated as dhimmis - which is a form of slavery.""

And it begins to get scary when you note that stable multicultural societies in even advanced economies [Singapore for example] tend only to be able to survive by having a highly authoritarian, even totalitarian government to keep the tribes from going to war.

If I didn't know any better I would slip into the conspiratorially minded world of believing that someone almost WANTS to collapse the system in order to introduce as much state control over the lives of individuals as possible.

But the most probable answer, and the simplest one, is humans motivated by bad ideology not noticing the failure of their beliefs, it tends to be the case in most instances of gross stupidity.

Though you are correct with respect to totalitarian multiculturalism, I believe Singapore isn't a valid example. It's a city-state, so there's no space for the ethnic/territorial disputes that would arise in a multicultural nation-state. And that's pretty much the reason why it manages to stay alive.

First, he's a convert to Islam, and everything he says comes straight out of the Koran, Hadith and Suna. Everything he says is pure Islam.

Why must he change his name? Because the Koran teaches that Moslems are the natural best of mankind, and of the Moslems, Arabs are the best of the best. To put this in a way even a liberal can understand, Arabs are the Master Race of mankind, according to the Koran. Therefore, Arabic is the proper language, and an Arabic name is the only appropriate one for a Moslem.

Yes, I'm aware that Persians don't take Arabic names -- they are also Shia Moslems who regard Sunnis as apostates (and vice versa). This bloke is clearly a Sunni convert.

Jesse_7, it is not hypocritical from an Islamic point of view to use free speech to bring about Sharia, which prohibits free speech. That is because the free speech is useful to expand the control of Islam, so it serves Allah's purposes. But once Sharia is instituted, any opposition to it is an attack up on Allah's law and thus Allah himself - and that's blasphemy. Which is punishable by death, under Sharia.

Also, it is acceptable for Moslems to lie (the doctrines of taqqiya and kitman) to anyone who is not a Moslem...

Immigration is a major issue across the Anglosphere, but toxic immigration of peoples whose religion demands the imposition of their religion by any means possible ought simply to be banned from entering free countries. This may get Nikita's panties in a twist, but the facts are plain to see, for those who wish to look.

I repeat: everything this bloke says is totally predictable, to those who comprehend the nature of Islam.

"it is not hypocritical from an Islamic point of view to use free speech to bring about Sharia, which prohibits free speech. That is because the free speech is useful to expand the control of Islam, so it serves Allah's purposes."

Jesse_7"it is not hypocritical from an Islamic point of view to use free speech to bring about Sharia, which prohibits free speech. That is because the free speech is useful to expand the control of Islam, so it serves Allah's purposes."

It just seems they're shameless opportunists.

Certainly. First of all, humans do that naturally anyway. Second, the Suna teaches this. Read the history of early Islam, and that is quite clear. The Khybhar / Khaybar oasis is a prime example.

I think I've allready told this story but there is a growing muslim presence in the Solomon Islands, which is strongly Christian. The country is poor and they offer substantial amounts of cash to converts, and then physically intimidate those who try to leave. Its an interesting strategy.

Nikita,I don't think that you read the comments very carefully. Nobody here wrote "Muslims are evil". I spoke from personal experience with Muslims as to their general demeanour, and the fact that Islam encourages behaviours that are not considered civilised is not up for debate.

That said, I have come to believe that the very first victims of Islam are Muslims themselves. Recognising that, however, does not mean that we in the West should share in their victimhood

I looked at your blog just now and things became a whole lot clearer. To your mind, ANY negative mention of Islam is "Islamophobia". That explains why you describe the comments here as "frothing at the mouth". Luzu

The "muslims are evil" gibe is implied by the comments on these pages, which is sad considering we Christians are the successors of rulers who believed they enjoyed a "divine right", and were "God's envoy" on earth. Christianity being the one true faith with all other persons being apostates requiring conversion...or death....any of this sound familiar? Thankfully with our modern secular education we've moved past this type of thought process and no longer pay attention to the Sunday sermons reminding us not to have sex with condoms but discriminate against homosexuals etc. It may surprise you to know, but your average muslim just wants to have a decent livelihood, provide for their family and be free to go about their business (like the rest of us). Now there's a huge anger in the Islamic world against the west (but mainly against the US), but I'm sure I don't have to list the reasons here? It's pretty self evident I would presume? While there are ongoing debates in the islamic world over democracy, sharia law etc, when muslims have been allowed to express themselves by the authorities (ie Turkey and Indonesia) the average citizen chooses democracy and freedom, so I don't buy this cold war style argument that we're being swamped by the enemy who want to destroy our values. Rotten systems like Communism and Sharia law will lose out every time should the people actually be given the right to freely choose.As an aside, while you may think you have me pegged after viewing my blog, but it may surprise you to know that I would vote for Malcolm Turnbull over Gillard any day, and that I've previously praised conservatives like Gerard Henderson and Ron Paul. Not everyone can be easily pegged into a particular hole, and it's just sad that there's so much hate in so many people's hearts (aspecially at the editorial team at The Australian newspaper).

As an aside, while you may think you have me pegged after viewing my blog, but it may surprise you to know that I would vote for Malcolm Turnbull over Gillard any day, and that I've previously praised conservatives like Gerard Henderson and Ron Paul.

Ha! If you only knew how revealing this little tidbit is. "Conservatives like Ron Paul" indeed!

What Van Wijk is saying is that you're a liberal, as in liberalism, which hardly makes you conservative, nor does it make Ron Paul, mr right libertarian, a conservative.

All the Muslims are sweethearts. Great so they won't mind respecting our customs and not wearing the Burqa in our lands? They won't mind publicly rejecting any idea of taking over nor of importing their customary law into ours.

As for the reasons for the Muslim anger you must be joking. "American foreign" policy, which consists in keeping the region stable so oil can be sold, which they profit off, has made these jerkoffs rich. If they waste their money on Whabbi colleges and white elephants that's their problem. If they can't manage to give themselves decent government, again their problem. If they're "angry" because the two most incompetent and hostile regimes in the region were taken out they should be rejoicing rather than hostile. Indeed they are, Afghanistan has over 60% approval rating for the mission.

The problem is that "American foreign policy" isn't a practical imposition on them, as I said they benefit, but it is an affront to their pride, because nobody should be better than a muslim. You're at the front lines. Enjoy living in a muslim country.

That's interesting that you would mention this, as I found a poll of Afghan people from late 2005 which states that 82% supported the overthrowing of the Taliban, with 90% having an unfavourable view of Osama Bin Laden.http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brasiapacificra/155.php?nid=&id=&pnt=155&lb=brasWith the Taliban of course representing a barbaric medieval form of islam, haven't you just added weight to my argument that most muslims want to be rid of these types of fruitcakes that are ruining their lives?

perhaps they're "enraged" because American backed dictators have completely subjugated so many middle east countries? I mean our "friends" in Saudi Arabia are just about the most despicible regime in the world? And the "enraged" Tunisians who've just thrown out a "pro western" dictator are probably likely to elect the previously banned Islamic Party if they're allowed to have free elections? You reap what you sow I guess?

This treasonous twit is not helping his cause one bit by publically announcing that he intends to fight Australians in order to impose Islamic rule upon us. Especially that comment, "I hate democracy with a pure hate" - ooh, I bet that'll go down well.

We are closer to a Muslim attempt at take-over than you are, but they should not forget that even though the French people can be very quiet, even to the point of being supine, they usually flare up pretty quick whenever their material standards are threatened, which would be the case. We can be hot-headed sometimes, no doubt the National Razor could resume its former employment in no time.

Nikitawhen muslims have been allowed to express themselves by the authorities (ie Turkey and Indonesia) the average citizen chooses democracy and freedom,

This is simply not true. The AKP in Turkey is steadily Islamizing that country, as the last generation of Turks that fully bought into Ataturkism fades from the scene. The urban areas are more secular, but the votes are out in Anatolia where the birth rate is much higher. The Turkish Army has had it special status as protector of the Turkish state taken away from it. The Turkish army rank and file are increasingly Moslems first and Turks second. The Turkish office of religion has had its power to censor the Friday sermons taken away from it.

All the levers that Ataturk put in place to push Turkey in a secular direction have been removed or seriously reduced in power. As a result, Turkey is becoming more Islamic, and the average Turkish voter has no problem with that.

And one last thing: even when Turkey was oh-so-secular, many Sharia laws remained in place, such as the dhimmi code regarding churches and Jewish houses of worship. The Eastern Orthodox church is in a quandary, because the top seminary in Istanbul was quietly closed some years back, and that was the sole source for over 1,000 years for certain churchmen.Christians in western Turkey face enormous issues just keeping churches in one piece, because the government has never been friendly to granting permits to repair, and forget building anything new. Of course as you surely know, there are no Christians in eastern Turkey. The Armenians "went away", as one Turkish tourist guide to the Lake Van area put it. And we both know how that happened, don't we? Or do you?

The number of Jews in Turkey has steadily dwindled to a tiny number today, in part because the government persistently refused not only permits to build new temples, but even to repair old ones.

There's more, much more, but I do not have the time post it. Suffice to say, "secular" Turkey has always been something of a myth, and it has visibly changed in the last 15 years, thanks in part to the "voting public".

Anonymous, you've misunderstood my point, I'm not talking about what the AUTHORITIES were/are doing, I'm talking about what PEOPLE want. As a Greek I know all about the Turks crimes against non Muslims, perhaps you missed the ferocious secular protests in Turkey calling for an end to the subversive "Islamisation" of the authorities?

Sorry Nikita but if the U.S backed dictators in KSA, Egypt and North Africa went tomorrow most of the citizens would vote for either Islamist influenced or outrightly islamist Parties.

The one exception is Tunisia, and god I wish them well because they are about the only bright spark on the whole damn coast.

Mainly this is to the fact that they had to develop an economy not based on getting bad smelling black stuff out of the ground, and that required a more educated workforce and more complex social interractions which clashed with the peasant-village-Mosque culture of much of the Islamic world.

""perhaps you missed the ferocious secular protests in Turkey calling for an end to the subversive "Islamisation" of the authorities?""

Those protests were much bigger and much more broad based a few years ago, at least according the the news reports i see.

Plus those protests are made of the Urban elite, which is westernised even to the point of having a large socialist element.

The only people capable of stopping this slow slide were the Army and poss the far right movements of Turkey, both have lost considerable ground over the past few years.

And if by chance in the next few decades the EU falls apart and Turkey moves ever closer to an Islamist culture that would make Greece one of the unluckiest places on earth [again].

"Sorry Nikita but if the U.S backed dictators in KSA, Egypt and North Africa went tomorrow most of the citizens would vote for either Islamist influenced or outrightly islamist Parties"

You are absolutely right, they will fall straight into the welcoming arms of extremist Islam. And what do you think has enraged these citizens of pro western brutal dictators so much? The extremists will fill the vacuum left by the anarchy of a non functioning state. The point I was making by mentioning Turkey and Indonesia was that if you allow democracy to blosom (at least to an extent) then you find that these people just want to live a normal life like the rest of us. But go on subjugating them if you want and see how that works out for you.....not exactly a succuss thus far?

"And what do you think has enraged these citizens of pro western brutal dictators so much?"

They'll always find something to be outraged about.

Indonesia, is an asian country and their islam is different to the arabs and more laid back. Still we have terrorist groups coming out of there. They're also one of the poorer countries in Asia and that's not because of us. There are so few successful muslim countries its ridiculous.

Brunei, a small welfare state siting on an oil well. Malaysia, its the substantial Chinese population that makes that country work as it does. They're useless. They don't want to work, (Inshallah, the work will be finished, I'm going for a break), they don't want to have sensible politics. Turkey is one exception and they're sliding back, and never managed proper democracy anyway, and Tunisa was heavily influenced by the French.

Because they're useless they'd rather thump their chest and be hostile to the west than build their own countries. They can certainly live off oil money for a little while longer and come here and suck up welfare, but it seems they can't move on from being jerks. Islam is a self righteous warrior religion after all.